A thin line...

She IS a Big Beautiful Doll Manny!   Now about that engine exhaust shroud......

Reasoned

Not having used markings other than the ones supplied OTB (yet), I suppose it is rather presumptuous to expect them to be "correct", let alone the recommended color schemes supplied with the kit.  In doing some research, there was no consenus and uniminity on some of the colors for a very comon build like "Big Beautiful Doll".  In fact (keeping with the P-51 theme), it was only until recently that I learned the "large box" behind the pilot that the radio gear sits on (often painted green chromate) was in fact a sealing fuel tank which was to be black.  I rely on the ones making the kit to have done the research, since I seem to stink at it.

Not having used markings other than the ones supplied OTB (yet), I suppose it is rather presumptuous to expect them to be "correct", let alone the recommended color schemes supplied with the kit.  In doing some research, there was no consenus and uniminity (sic)  unanimity on some of the colors for a very comon build like "Big Beautiful Doll".  In fact (keeping with the P-51 theme), it was only until recently that I learned the "large box" behind the pilot that the radio gear sits on (often painted green chromate) was in fact a sealing fuel tank which was to be black.  I rely on the ones making the kit to have done the research, since I seem to stink at it.

There are ways to tell someone they got the markings wrong without telling or even inferring that they are maroons.

On another site, someone wanted to know which aftermarket TUSK set would be proper for their USMC M1A2. I simply asked him if he knew that the Marines don't use the M1A2. It's his kit, he can build it as he wants but why pay top dollar for a kit and an expensive aftermarket set for a version incorrectly marked.

He was thankful the information was pointed out, although even if he had completed it, changing modern US markings from Marines to Army would not be that difficult to do.

I forgot another part, that changes the outlook on this a lot

it depends a LOT on whether we are talking about some guys finished pride and joy,,,,,or if he is just asking before or during the build

I consider it to be helpful to say,,,,,,"if you compare that decal sheet from XYZ to the photo on page 123, you will see that you dont' want to fork over the $25 for the sheet, since it might not suit your purpose"

I do not consider it helpful to look at the same finished model and say "lol, at you, what a maroon, everyone knows not to use that sheet for that aircraft"

Hans von Hammer

Always follow up a critique by offering solutions... And, I think it helps more if you make the suggestions of what to do sound like it's what you'd do, rather than telling them what THEY should do..

  It's up to the builder to decide if he wants to take your advice or not, but just sitting there at your keyboard, ripping a build apart without offering a single solution for him or her is just plain rude, to put it mildly... 

 

True! Lord knows just getting back into this there is a TON I have to learn about building and if I can't get it here, I don't know where.  Not speaking for all who post a build on here but when asking "Comments and suggestions appreciated" I MEAN IT!   That being said, each builder has to determine which standard (as pointed above) they want to aim for.  A gratuitous nit picker or so-called "rivet counter" can point out all sorts of potential inaccuracies but it should be dispensed with tact AND when welcomed.

I too tend to gloss over pages of "nice work" posts... If I see something, I point it out... BUT... I always try to phrase it in a manner that's constructive... Like, "Next time you build that particular aircraft, you might want to correct the shape of the head-rest. They were round, rather than the rectangle in the kit, I used Sculpy Clay to build the head-rest on that one, after filing off the old one.", or "That's a great kit, and your details are out-standing but your camoflage choice was pretty much wrong for that tank in that Area of Operations and time... The 3-color NATO camouflage scheme wasn't used at that time & place, and the ground troops still wore steel pots instead of the K-pots, but it's easy to correct if you want to. When I built it, I just penciled on the MERDC sheme outlines and-- yadda, yadda, yadda.."...  

Always follow up a critique by offering solutions... And, I think it helps more if you make the suggestions of what to do sound like it's what you'd do, rather than telling them what THEY should do..

  It's up to the builder to decide if he wants to take your advice or not, but just sitting there at your keyboard, ripping a build apart without offering a single solution for him or her is just plain rude, to put it mildly... 

Pat, sorry for reminding you of that, that was surely not my intent

I was only trying to list 4 possible ways of "building an accurate model"

To me, it seems to be connected to the builder's claims, or lack of claims

I am wondering what I am supposed to say if someone builds a completely wonderful Lady Jessie,,,,,,and it had the four digits 5021 on the base of the tail, instead of 5022

to a few of the standards I listed, it's a "nice model, very well assembled"

if the builder insists that it is a carefully researched, historically accurate,,,,,,he'd be making a false claim,,,,,,,,am I supposed to just say "nice model",,,,,or ask why the BuNo is not Lady Jessie's number?

lol,,,,,I very well know what I might hear if I tried to pass that model off as "correct"

is this one of those cases where I am supposed to say "nice model", if it's someone elses,,,,,,and walk on by to look at the next aircraft,,,,,,,,,,but, if it's mine, take all the comments in stride?

it just doesn't seem to be very "Fine" scale modeling to me

as for me,,,,,,I am going to keep on giving help and answers to the questions "what did xyc look like at Chu Lai", and "who makes the best Kit, Decals, Weapons, Paint Colors for a model of XYZ at Chu Lai",,,,,,doing any less seems to be hindering a modeler's quest, instead of helping

Hans has already nailed the fine line, although a lot of what we perceive as "rivet counting" during a critique is the "rivet counter" applying his standards to someone else's work. Pointing out errors or areas to improve to someone isn't necessarily a bad thing. It is probably more helpful than the perpetual "smoke blowing" that often promulgates this site. A pat on the back is a good thing, but pages of "good job" posts don't help the modeler improve as much as a few well worded critiques.

I admire the model builders who strive for perfection. Many of them are the ones to thank for the more accurate scale models on the market today. The indepth research, gathered photos, and subsequent analysis are vital in increasing the awareness among manufaturers on various details. Long gone are the days when one Sherman or Tiger model kit is given decals for every possible marking of any Sherman or Tiger whether the markings were proper or not.

I have also been bitten by the AMS bug a time or two. My modeling goal is to create a scale replica. Sometimes the joy is in the building, and sometimes the joy is in the completion. Sometimes I fix errors I know about and sometimes I do not. Sometimes I am unaware of the error and would have fixed it if I knew and other times I wouldn't have given a rat's behind even if I knew about it.

One thing I learned in nearly three decades of military service is that perfection is the enemy of timeliness. I prefer the 75% solution in a timely manner than the perfect solution that comes too late. It's the same in my model building; I'd rather finish the kit with a few inaccuracies than have it languish partially built because some item isn't quite right.

In the end, there may be a few people who might notice an inaccuracy that I did not correct, but everyone would notice the kit that wasn't finished.

"Rivet counting" is always something that someone else does in pointing out perceived inaccuracies or critiques where its obvious that the work already posted is already a sincere attempt to either replicate or accurately suggest a detail.

Bingo... Rivet-counters vs someone with AMS... The AMS modeler is always striving for more accuaracy, oftentimes to the point of never finishing anything... RCs seldom show their work, but they're always ready and willing to critque others, and seldom, if ever, offer any constructive ideas, alternatives, or suggestions... They are also quick to post photos of the prototype, but have nothing to say about how to acheive the desired results... 

"Your Mustang model is all wrong... Captain Soanso (insert photo) flew that aircraft (insert P-51D 44-0198 photo) until May, 1944, when it was scrapped due to airframe over-stress (insert photo)... You've depicted it as it appeared prior to that flight, but the number of kill-markings, although reflecting his true score, shouldn't have been his final tally of 24 kills, only 20 (insert photo)...

Also, you have the anti-glare in OD, when it was cleary flat black as seen here: (insert photo).  If you want an accurate model of his aircraft, you should have used the Tamigawa P-51K (insert phot) with the Dallas Canopy (insert photo) rather than the Revellogram Mustang, since it's a scale 3 inches short in wingspan (Insert photo of kit wing laid on top of plans)..  

You also messed up the cockpit, with the instrument panel. It was never all-black on that aircraft (insert photo) but rather grey along the edges with black coaming (insert photo), plus the shape of the nose is wrong (insert photo).  Overall, it's the wrong kit, wrong markings, wrong shape, and wrong colors, and is so grossly mis-shapen that the kit is a fraud and never should have been released, much less built"...

They're most content with finding fault in other's work, and are the bane of Gizmologists everywhere... I just wanna choke the livin' **** out of 'em...

"Rivet counting" is never something  modeler does in his quest for accuracy and fidelity to something he's building.

"Rivet counting" is always something that someone else does in pointing out perceived inaccuracies or critiques where its obvious that the work already posted is already a sincere attempt to either replicate or accurately suggest a detail.

TarnShip

doesn't the approach have to be different for the four different types of "accurate modeling"? (with each being equally valid from my point of view)

one approach is to model "a Skyhawk with accurate markings, with any weapons that a Skyhawk could carry"

another approach is to build "a Skyhawk from the USS Hancock cruise in 1973, with any weapons that could have been onboard the Hancock at that time"

another aprroach is to build "the Skyhawk, NP-401 BuNo 155022, as it appeared on the same Hancock cruise"

yet another approach is to build the above aircraft, as " Lady Jessie, with the markings and weapons as carried on the first flight the morning of (pic any exact date in the 1973 cruise), with super pilot Sam at the controls"

that list above could produce 4 different models,,,,,or the same exact finished model, just worded 4 different ways

as you work down from top to bottom,,,,,,the accuracy issue becomes more and more important, and the burden of "proof" becomes heavier,,,,,,,,and the opportunity to pick the nits increases

all 4 methods are equally valid,,,,,,,along with the "I want one model of a Skyhawk on my shelves, and Lady Jessie looks like a pretty aircraft"

the arguments start when someone claims to build to the 4th (strictest) standard,,,,,,but, puts double striped bombs on a 1965 Skyhawk model,,,,,,,,,sure, he can put them on there,,,,,,it's his model,,,,,,,,but, don't claim it's built to "4th standard", because it's not

Rex

Reminds me of when I was a kid and wanted to join the Milwaukee Society of Scale Model Engineers.  They were an O scale model RR club that started in the '30s and modelled the down town Milwaukee area on September 23, 1921 at 11:00 A.M.  They had done extensive research on where every scale person on the layout was that day and what they were doing plus every piece of equipment that was present.

To join the club you had to build a building, RR car or locomotive using no commercial parts whatsoever including the motor and drive train.  Since I didn't have a foundry, lathe and mill I was SOL.

                                                                                                 Pat.

Sprue-ce Goose

"as long as the modeler is happy with it then its okay" , er........

....actually, doesn't IPMS have a " rule of thumb " pertaining to scale appearance and distance from the viewer based upon how an actual object appears to the observer?

If I can see obvious trenches or rivets in a model when I know I would not be able to see that detail in an actual device, then I consider the build inaccurate.

No such rule exists in the competition handbook. Exact color, "aside from gross inaccuracies such as a light green "Red Arrows" aircraft, color shades should not be used to determine a model's accuracy or lack thereof." is up to the builder.

Now, as to accuracy vs. rivet counting, it's like the old adage about perspiration, "I have a glow, you're perspiring, he's sweating."  I'm building an accurate model and he's rivet counting.

doesn't the approach have to be different for the four different types of "accurate modeling"? (with each being equally valid from my point of view)

one approach is to model "a Skyhawk with accurate markings, with any weapons that a Skyhawk could carry"

another approach is to build "a Skyhawk from the USS Hancock cruise in 1973, with any weapons that could have been onboard the Hancock at that time"

another aprroach is to build "the Skyhawk, NP-401 BuNo 155022, as it appeared on the same Hancock cruise"

yet another approach is to build the above aircraft, as " Lady Jessie, with the markings and weapons as carried on the first flight the morning of (pic any exact date in the 1973 cruise), with super pilot Sam at the controls"

that list above could produce 4 different models,,,,,or the same exact finished model, just worded 4 different ways

as you work down from top to bottom,,,,,,the accuracy issue becomes more and more important, and the burden of "proof" becomes heavier,,,,,,,,and the opportunity to pick the nits increases

all 4 methods are equally valid,,,,,,,along with the "I want one model of a Skyhawk on my shelves, and Lady Jessie looks like a pretty aircraft"

the arguments start when someone claims to build to the 4th (strictest) standard,,,,,,but, puts double striped bombs on a 1965 Skyhawk model,,,,,,,,,sure, he can put them on there,,,,,,it's his model,,,,,,,,but, don't claim it's built to "4th standard", because it's not

Rex

Nothing wrong with rivet counting, heck the more I can learn the better. It's all about approach, i.e. whether or not the expert is a blowhole or someone who is just very knowledgable and offers his/her advice, if asked.

In model railroading, which is pretty much where the term originated, the former are known as "foamers".

Or sometimes its a subject near and dear to you... I was an ITV crewman once upon a time. On the TOW turrets on ESCI's LAV TOW and Italeri's ITV kits, I added much of the detail that was lacking on both kits' simplified versions. Both vehicles use the same twin TOW launcher. Unless one has served on either vehicle, the differences are hard to spot. But mine are fairly accurately updated and corrected. Rivet counting, no. Modifying and accurizing yes.

If I see glaring omissions that are readilly apparent from doing a dilligent data search I will scratch or AM them into the build.  Generally I won't call others on them but if they ask my opinion, all bets are off.  Getting down to a millimeter here or a millimeter there is ridiculous.

Case in point:  The M-36 Jackson by Academy.  I wanted to do an open engine bay so got a resin Ford GAA engine listed for 1/35 Shermans in general.  It became obvious that either the engine was too large or the engine bay was too small.  It turned out to be the latter and after checking prototype dimensions, the whole body was 1 1/2 scale feet short and and six inches too narrow.

I was able to modify the resin kit and even when placed next to other model shermans, unless you know what you're looking for the difference doesn't jump out at you.  Now I just build so that the overall presentation is close enough to the prototype.  I'm not going to waste my life catering to the anally retentive.

                                                                                 Pat.

I would venture that rivet counting is when the person gets wrapped around the very minor details. The size or placement of panel lines, scale differences of .2mm or .5mm or other hard to detect measurements, or some other minutiae that are only known by those truly knoweledgable and obsessed by that level of fidelity. Somthing along the lines of the "Midway" Avenger is where the line is crossed. The title can be interpreted both ways where on one side there are those who say, "it did not say at Midway" so it does not have to be marked in the manner as flown on the day of battle, rather asearlier in its' career. While on the otherhand those interpret it as just that, as seen at Midway,based on avaialble photographic evidence. As for me, these days I try to base most of my subjects on available photgraphic reference. While they may not quite hold up to the "rivet counter" level of fidelity, they usually hold up to the "Midway Avenger" standard, based on what reference I had availble at the time of finishing.

"as long as the modeler is happy with it then its okay" , er........

....actually, doesn't IPMS have a " rule of thumb " pertaining to scale appearance and distance from the viewer based upon how an actual object appears to the observer?

If I can see obvious trenches or rivets in a model when I know I would not be able to see that detail in an actual device, then I consider the build inaccurate.

If the item in question is paint or markings, then the builder is responsible for checking historical markings records for the aircraft , time frame and theater of operations.

If the aircraft doesn't represent a specific aircraft but a sample aircraft of the era, then I would consider the build acceptable so long as the builder has taken care to follow historical records for the time frame.

BTW...are you also including scale distance atmospheric "haze" in the accuracy standards for paint mixing?